holding that a domestic violence plaintiff alleging gender discrimination in the provision of police services “must show that there is a policy or custom of providing less protection to victims of domestic violence than to victims of other crimes, that gender discrimination is a motivating factor, and that [the plaintiff] was injured by the practice”
How later courts described this case
- holding that a domestic violence plaintiff alleging gender discrimination in the provision of police services “must show that there is a policy or custom of providing less protection to victims of domestic violence than to victims of other crimes, that gender discrimination is a motivating factor, and that [the plaintiff] was injured by the practice”
- stating that, “[ujnder the standard we adopt today, Soto must show that there is a policy or custom of providing less protection to victims of domestic assault than to other victims, that gender discrimination is a motivating factor, and that Soto was injured by the practice”
- holding that parent could not state due process claim based on the death of her minor children where "the defendants’ actions, despite the tragic outcome, were not specifically aimed at ending or affecting [plaintiff’s] relationship with her children”
- concluding that remarks that showed "some evidence of discriminatory intent" were insufficient to sustain an equal protection claim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
TORRUELLA, Chief Judge
(concurring).
I concur with the majority’s opinion. I am of the view that the District Court should be affirmed for substantially the same reasons and grounds as are stated in the opinion of the District Court.